Statements of consensus from the world's
scientists

Whenever scientists resort to statements of
consensus over concerns about this and that, they usually do not have sufficient
scientific facts and understanding, while wishing to wield political influence.
In other words, they want to scare people into action. Such consensus statements
must therefore be received with the utmost suspicion. Often the many signatories
are not experts in the field. On this page we have collected several consensus
statements, and time will prove these either right or wrong. This page
is updated from time to time.

.

1992: The World's Scientists' Warning to Humanity,
signed by 1575 scientists

Introduction; The environment; The atmosphere; Water resources; Oceans;
Soil:, Forests; Living species; Population; What we must do

1993: Statement by 58 of the world's scientific
academies, in preparation of the Conference on Population and Development
in 1994

The growing world population; Key determinants of population growth; Population
growth, resource consumption and the environment; The Earth is finite;
Quality of life and the environment; Human reproductive health; Sustainability
of the natural world as everyone's responsibility; What science and technology
can contribute toward enhancing the human prospect

1998: Troubled waters, a call for action. Over 1600
scientists sign a declaration for more marine reserves.

A consensus reached at the opening of the International Year of the Oceans,
1998. Life in the world’s estuaries, coastal waters, enclosed seas and
oceans is increasingly threatened. Marine reserves are the only solution.
20% of the sea requires total protection.

“I want to pause here and
talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called
consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious
development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically,
the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a
way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever
you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach
for your wallet, because you ’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of
science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business
of politics.Science, on the contrary,
requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that
he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.
In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.
The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke
with the consensus. There is no such thing as
consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science,
it isn’t consensus. Period.” - Michael Crichton in a
speech at Caltech in 2003

The World's Scientists' Warning to Humanity

In 1992, some 1575 scientists signed The World's Scientists'
Warning to Humanity, which calls attention to the pressing environmental
issues facing the natural world and emphasizes the need for immediate action
in order to avert disaster. Co-ordinated by Dr Henry Kendall, Nobel laureate
and chairman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, the following document
present the consensus of many of the world's most distinguished scientists,
including more than half of all living scientists awarded the Nobel Prize.

IntroductionHuman beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human
activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment
and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices
put at risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and
animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world what it will be unable
to sustain life in the manner that we know. fundamental changes are urgent
if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about.

The environmentThe environment is suffering critical stress:

The atmosphereStratospheric ozone depletion threatens us with enhanced ultraviolet
radiation at the earth's surface, which can be damaging or lethal to many
life forms. Air pollution near ground level, and acid precipitation, are
already causing widespread injury to humans, forests and crops.

Water resourcesHeedless exploitation of depletable groundwater supplies endangers
food production and other essential human systems. Heavy demands on the
world's surface waters have resulted in serious shortages in some 80 countries,
containing 40% of the world's population. Pollution of rivers, lakes, and
groundwater further limits this supply.

OceansDestructive pressure on the oceans is severe, particularly in the coastal
regions, which produce most of the world's food fish. The total marine
catch is now at or above the estimated maximum sustainable yield. Some
fisheries have already shown signs of collapse. Rivers carrying heavy burdens
of eroded soil into the seas also carry industrial, municipal, agricultural,
and livestock waste - some of it toxic.

ForestsTropical rain forests, as well as tropical and temperate dry forests,
are being destroyed rapidly. At present rates, some critical forest types
will be gone in a few years, and most of the tropical rain forest will
be gone before the end of the next century. With them will go large numbers
of plant and animal species.

Living speciesThe irreversible loss of species, which by 2100 may reach one-third
of all species now living, is especially serious. We are losing the potential
they hold for providing medicinal and other benefits, and the contribution
that genetic diversity of life forms gives to the robustness of the world's
biological systems and to the astonishing beauty of the earth itself.

Much of this damage is irreversible on a scale of centuries or [is]
permanent. Other processes appear to pose additional threats. Increasing
levels of gases in the atmosphere from human activities, including carbon
dioxide released from fossil fuel burning and from deforestation,
may alter climate on a global scale. Predictions of global warming are
still uncertain - with projected effects ranging from tolerable to very
severe - but potential risks are very great.

Our massive tampering with the world's interdependent web of life -
coupled with the environmental damage inflicted by deforestation, species
loss, and climate change - could trigger widespread adverse effects, including
unpredictable collapses of critical biological systems whose interactions
and dynamics we only imperfectly understand. Uncertainty over the extent
of these effects cannot excuse complacency or delay in facing the threats.

PopulationThe earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent
is finite. Its ability to provide food and energy is finite. And we are
fast approaching many of the earth's limits. Current economic practices
that damage the environment, in both developed and underdeveloped nations,
cannot be continued without the risk that vital global systems will be
damaged beyond repair.

Pressures resulting from unrestrained population growth put demands
on the natural world that can overwhelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable
future. If we are to halt the destruction of our environment, we must accept
limits to that growth. A World Bank estimate indicates that world populations
will not stabilize at less than 12.4 billion, while the United Nations
concludes that the eventual total could reach 14 billion, a near tripling
of today's 5.4 billion. But, even at this moment, one person in five lives
in absolute poverty without enough to eat, and one in ten suffers serious
malnutrition.

No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert
the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity
immeasurably diminished.

WarningWe, the undersigned, senior members of the world's scientific community,
hereby warn all humanity of what lies ahead. A great change in our stewardship
of the earth and the life on it is required if vast human misery is to
be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably
mutilated.

What we must doFive inextricably linked areas must be addressed simultaneously:

We must bring environmentally damaging activities under control to restore
and protect the integrity of the earth's systems we depend on.

We must, for example, move away from fossil fuels to more benign, inexhaustible
energy sources to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the pollution
of our air and water. Priority must be given to the development of energy
sources matched to Third World needs - small scale and relatively easy
to implement.
We must halt deforestation, injury to and loss of agricultural land,
and the loss of terrestrial and marine plant and animal species.

We must manage resources crucial to human welfare more effectively. We
must give high priority to efficient use of energy, water, and other materials,
including expansion of conservation and recycling.

We must stabilize population. This will be possible only if all nations
recognize that it requires improved social and economic conditions, and
the adoption of effective, voluntary family planning.

We must reduce and eventually eliminate poverty.

We must ensure sexual equality, and guarantee women control over their
own reproductive decisions.

The developed nations are the largest polluters in the world today. They
must greatly reduce their overconsumption if we are to reduce pressures
on resources and the global environment. The developed nations have the
obligation to provide aid and support to developing nations, because only
the developed nations have the financial resources and the technical skills
for these tasks.

Action on this recognition is not altruism, but enlightened self-interest:
whether industrialized or not, we all have but one lifeboat. No nation
can escape from injury when global biological systems are damaged. No nation
can escape from conflicts over increasingly scarce resources. In addition,
environmental and economic instabilities will cause mass migrations with
incalculable consequences for developed and undeveloped nations alike.

Developing nations must realize that environmental damage is one of
the greatest threats they face and that attempts to blunt it will be overwhelmed
if their populations go unchecked. The greatest peril is to become trapped
in spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social,
economic and environmental collapse.

Success in this global endeavor will require a great reduction in violence
and war Resources now devoted to the preparation and conduct of war - amounting
to over US$ 1 trillion annually - will be badly needed in the new tasks
and should be diverted tot he new challenges.

A new ethic is required - a new attitude toward discharging our responsibility
for caring for ourselves and for the earth. We must recognize its fragility.
We must no longer allow it to be ravaged. This ethic must motivate a great
movement, convincing reluctant leaders and reluctant governments and reluctant
peoples themselves to effect the needed changes. The scientists issuing
this warning hope that out message will reach and affect people everywhere.
We need the help of many.

We require the help of the world community of scientists -
natural, social, economic, political.
We require the help of the world's business and industrial leaders.
We require the help of the world's religious leaders.
We require the help of the world's peoples.
We call on all to join us in this task.

[Followed by a list of signatories, including 104 Nobel laureates
- a majority of the living recipients of the Prize in the sciences - have
signed it so far. These men and women represent 71 countries, including
all of the 19 largest economic powers, all of the 12 most populous nations,
12 countries in Africa, 14 in Asia, 19 in Europe, and 12 in Latin America.]

Statement by 58 of the world's scientific academies

In 1993, fifty-six of the world's scientific academies (including the US
National Academy) came together in a 'Science Summit' on world population.
The conference was an outgrowth of two earlier meetings, one by the Royal
Swedish Academy of Sciences, the other by the Royal Society of London and
the U S National Academy of Sciences. At both meetings, urgent concern
was expressed for the expanding world population and a commitment was made
to continue discourse on matters related to population growth.

The resulting 1993 Science Summit - the first large-scale collaborative
activity ever undertaken by the world's scientific academies - set as its
primary goal the formulation of a statement to be presented at the International
Conference on Population and Development in 1994. The statement, reprinted
below, underscores the need for government policies and initiatives that
will help achieve 'zero population growth within the lifetime of our children'.

[October 1993, Delhi, India]

The growing world populationThe world is in the midst of an unprecedented expansion of human numbers.
It took hundreds of thousands of years for our species to reach a population
level of 10 million, only 10,000 years ago. This number grew to 100 million
people about 2,000 years ago and to 2.5 billion by 1950. Within less than
the span of a single lifetime, it has more than doubled to 5.5 billion
in 1993.

This accelerated population growth resulted from rapidly lowered death
rates (particularly infant mortality rates), combined with sustained high
birth rates. Success in reducing death rates is attributable to several
factors: increases in food production and distribution, improvements in
public health (water and sanitation) and in medical technology (vaccines
and antibiotics), along with gains in education and standards of living
within many developing nations.

Over the past 30 years, many regions of the world have also dramatically
reduced birth rates. Some have already achieved family sizes small enough,
if maintained, to result eventually in a halt to population growth. The
successes have led to a slowing of the world's rate of population increase.
The shift from high to low death and birth rates has been called the 'demographic
transition'.

The rate at which the demographic transition progresses world-wide will
determine the ultimate level of the human population. The lag between downward
shifts of death and birth rates may be many decades or even several generations,
and during these periods population growth will continue inexorably. We
face the prospect of a further doubling of the population within the next
half century. Most of this growth will take place in developing countries.

Consider three hypothetical scenarios for the levels of human population
in the century ahead:

Fertility declines within sixty years from the current rate of 3.3 to a
global replacement average of 2.1 children per woman. The current population
momentum would lead to at least 11 billion people levelling off at the
end of the twenty-first century.

Fertility reduces to an average of 1.7 children per woman early in the
next century. Human population growth would peak at 7.8 billion persons
in the middle of the twenty-first century and decline slowly thereafter.

Fertility declines to no lower than 2.5 children per woman. Global population
would grow to 19 billion by the year 2100, and to 28 billion by 2150.

The actual outcome will have enormous implications for the human condition
and for the natural environment on which all life depends.

Key determinants of population growthHigh fertility rates have historically been strongly correlated with
poverty, high childhood mortality rates, low status and educational levels
of women, deficiencies in reproductive health services, and inadequate
availability and acceptance of contraceptives. Falling fertility rates
and the demographic transition are generally associated with improved standards
of living, such as increased per capita incomes, increased life expectancy,
lowered infant mortality, increased adult literacy, and higher rates of
female education and employment.

Even with improved economic conditions, nations, regions, and societies
will experience different demographic patterns due to varying cultural
influences. The value placed upon large families (especially among underprivileged
rural populations in less-developed countries that benefit least from the
process of development), the assurance of security for the elderly, the
ability of women to control reproduction, and the status and rights of
women within families and within societies are significant cultural factors
affecting family size and the demand for family planning services.

Even with a demand for family planning services, the adequate availability
of and access to family planning and other reproductive health services
are essential in facilitating slowing of the population growth rate. Also,
access to education and the ability of women to determine their own economic
security influence their reproductive decisions.

Population growth, resource consumption and the environmentThroughout history, and especially during the twentieth century, environmental
degradation has primarily been a product of our efforts to secure improved
standards of food, clothing, shelter, comfort, and recreation for growing
numbers of people. The magnitude of the threat to the ecosystem is linked
to human population size and resource use per person.

Resource use, waste production, and environmental degradation are accelerated
by population growth. They are further exacerbated by consumption habits,
certain technological developments, and particular patterns of social organization
and resource management.

As human numbers further increase, the potential for irreversible changes
of far-reaching magnitude also increases. Indicators of severe environmental
stress include the growing loss of biodiversity, increasing greenhouse
gas emission, increasing deforestation worldwide, stratospheric ozone depletion,
acid rain, loss of topsoil, and shortages of water, food, and fuel wood
in many parts of the world.

While both developed and developing countries have contributed to global
environmental problems, developed countries with 85 percent of the gross
world product and 23 percent of its population account for the largest
part of mineral and fossil -fuel consumption, resulting in significant
environmental impacts. With current technologies, present levels of consumption
by the developed world are likely to lead to serious negative consequences
for all countries. This is especially apparent with the increases in atmospheric
carbon dioxide and trace gases that have accompanied industrialization,
which have the potential for changing global climate and raising sea level.

In both rich and poor countries, local environmental problems arise
from direct pollution from energy use and other industrial activities,
inappropriate agricultural practices, population concentration, inadequate
environmental management, and inattention to environmental goals. When
current economic production has been the overriding priority and inadequate
attention has been given to environmental protection, local environmental
damage has led to serious negative impacts on health and major impediments
to future economic growth. Restoring the environment, even where still
possible, is far more expensive and time consuming than managing it wisely
in the first place; even rich countries have difficulty in affording extensive
environmental remediation efforts.

The relationships between human population, economic development, and
the natural environment are complex. Examination of local and regional
case studies reveals the influence and interaction of many variables. For
example, environmental and economic impacts vary with population composition
and distribution, and with rural-urban and international migrations. Furthermore,
poverty and lack of economic opportunities stimulate faster population
growth and increase incentives for environmental degradation by encouraging
exploitation of marginal resources.

Both developed and developing countries face a great dilemma in orienting
their productive activities in the direction of a more harmonious interaction
with nature. This challenge is accentuated by the uneven stages of development.
If all people of the world consumed fossil fuels and other natural resources
at the rate now characteristic of developed countries (and with current
technologies), this would greatly intensify our already unsustainable demands
on the biosphere. Yet development is a legitimate expectation of less-developed
and transitional countries.

The Earth is finiteThe growth of population over the past half century was for a time
matched by a similar worldwide increases in utilizable resources. However,
in the past decade food production from both the land and sea has declined
relative to population growth. The area of agricultural land has shrunk,
both through soil erosion and reduced possibilities of irrigation. The
availability of water is already a constraint in some countries. These
are warnings that the Earth is finite, and that natural systems are being
pushed ever closer to their limits.

Quality of life and the environmentOur common goal is improving the quality of life for all people, those
living today and succeeding generations, ensuring their social, economic
and personal well-being with guarantees of fundamental human rights, and
allowing them to live harmoniously with a protected environment.

We believe that this goal can be achieved, provided we are willing to undertake
the requisite social change. Given time, political will, and intelligent
use of science and technology, human ingenuity can remove many constraints
on improving human welfare worldwide, finding substitutes for wasteful
practices, and protecting the natural environment.

But the time is short and appropriate policy decisions are urgently
needed. The ability of humanity to reap the benefits of its ingenuity depends
on its skill in governance and management, and on strategies for dealing
with problems such as widespread poverty, increased numbers of aged persons,
inadequate health care and limited educational opportunities for large
groups of people, limited capital for investment, environmental degradation
in every region of the world, and unmet needs for family planning services
in both developing and developed countries. In our judgement, humanity's
ability to deal successfully with its social, economic, and environmental
problems will require the achievement of zero population growth within
the lifetime of our children.

Human reproductive healthThe timing and spacing of pregnancies are important for the health
of the mother, her children and her family. Most maternal deaths are due
to unsafe practices in terminating pregnancies, a lack of readily available
services for high-risk pregnancies, and women having too many children
or having them too early and too late in life.

Millions of people still do not have adequate access to family planning
services and suitable contraceptives. Only about one-half of married couples
of reproductive age are currently practicing contraception. Yet as the
director-general of UNICEF put it, "Family planning could bring more benefits
to more people at less cost than any other single technology now available
to the human race." Existing contraceptive methods could go far toward
alleviating the unmet need if they were available and used in sufficient
numbers, through a variety of channels of distribution, sensitively adapted
to local needs.

But most contraceptives are for use by women, who consequently bear
the risks to health. The development of contraceptives for male use continues
to lag. Better contraceptives are needed for both men and women, but developing
new contraceptive approaches is slow and financially unattractive to industry.
Further work is needed on an ideal spectrum of contraceptive methods that
are safe, efficacious, easy to use and deliver, reasonably priced, user-controlled
and responsive, appropriate for special populations and age cohorts, reversible,
and at least some of which protect against sexually transmitted diseases,
including AIDS.

Reducing fertility rates, however, cannot be achieved merely by providing
more contraceptives. The demand for these services has to be addressed.
Even when family planning and other reproductive health services are widely
available, the social and economic status of women affects individual decisions
to use them. The ability of women to make decisions about family size is
greatly affected by gender roles within society and in sexual relationships.
Ensuring equal opportunity for women in all aspects of society is crucial.

Thus all reproductive health services must be implemented as a part
of broader strategies to raise the quality of human life. They must include
the following:

Efforts to reduce and eliminate gender-based inequalities. Women and men
should have equal opportunities and responsibilities in sexual, social,
and economic life.

Provision of convenient family planning and other reproductive health services
with a wide variety of safe contraceptive options, irrespective of an individual's
ability to pay.

Encouragement of voluntary approaches to family planning and elimination
of unsafe and coercive practices.

Development policies that address basic needs such as clean water, sanitation,
broad primary health care measures and education, and that foster empowerment
of the poor and women.

"The adoption of a smaller family norm, with consequent decline in total
fertility, should not be viewed only in demographic terms. It means that
people, and particularly women, are empowered and are taking control of
their fertility and the planning of their lives; it means that children
are born by choice, not by chance, and that births are better planned;
and it means that families are able to invest relatively more in a smaller
number of beloved children, trying to prepare them for a better future."
[Mahmoud F Fathalla: Family planning and reproductive
health, a global overview. Invited paper presented at the 1993 Science
Summit, Delhi, India, 26 October 1993.]

Sustainability of the natural world is everyone's responsibilityIn addressing environmental problems, all countries face hard choices.
This is particularly so when it is perceived that there are short-term
trade-offs between economic growth and environmental protection, and where
there are limited financial resources. But the downside risks to the earth
- our environmental life support system - over the next generation and
beyond are too great to ignore. Current trends in environmental degradation
from human activities combined with the unavoidable increase in global
population will take us into unknown territory.

Other factors, such as inappropriate governmental policies, also contribute
in nearly every case. Many environmental problems in both rich and poor
countries appear to be the result of policies that are misguided even when
viewed on short-term economic grounds. If a longer-term view is taken,
environmental goals assume an even higher priority.

The prosperity and technology of the industrialized countries give them
greater opportunities and greater responsibility for addressing environmental
problems worldwide. Their resources make it easier to forestall and to
ameliorate local environmental problems. Developed countries need to become
more efficient in both resource use and wasteful consumption. If prices,
taxes and regulatory policies include environmental costs, consumption
habits will be influenced. The industrialized countries need to assist
developing countries and communities with funding and expertise in combating
both global and local environmental problems. Mobilizing 'technology for
environment' should be an integral part of this new ethic of sustainable
development.

For all governments it is essential to incorporate environmental goals
at the outset in legislation, economic planning, and priority setting;
and to provide appropriate incentives for public and private institutions,
communities, and individuals to operate in environmentally benign ways.
Trade-offs between environmental and economic goals can be reduced through
wise policies. For dealing with global environmental problems, all countries
of the world need to work collectively through treaties and conventions,
as has occurred with such issues as global climate change and biodiversity,
and to develop innovative financing mechanisms that facilitate environmental
protection.

What science and technology can contribute toward enhancing the
human prospectAs scientists cognizant of the history of scientific progress and aware
of the potential of science for contributing to human welfare, it is our
collective judgement that continuing population growth poses a great risk
to humanity. Furthermore, it is not prudent to rely on science and technology
alone to solve problems created by rapid population growth, wasteful resource
consumption, and poverty.

The natural and social sciences are nevertheless crucial for developing
new understanding so that governments and other institutions act more effectively,
and for developing new options for limiting population growth, protecting
the natural environment, and improving the quality of human life.

Cultural, social, economic, religious, educational and political factors
that affect reproductive behavior, family size, and successful family planning.

Conditions for human development, including the impediments that result
from economic inefficiencies; social inequalities; and ethnic, class or
gender biases.

Global and local environmental change (affecting climate, biodiversity,
soils, water, air), its causes (including the roles of poverty, population
growth, economic growth, technology, national and international politics),
and policies to mitigate its effects.

Strategies and tools for improving all aspects of education and human resource
development, with special attention to women.

Improved family planning programs, contraceptive options for both sexes,
and other reproductive health services, with special attention to needs
of women; and improved general primary health care, especially maternal
and child health care.

Transition to economies that provide increased annual welfare with less
consumption of energy and materials.

Improved mechanisms for building indigenous capacity in the natural sciences,
engineering, medicine, social sciences, and management in developing countries,
including an increased capability of conducting integrated interdisciplinary
assessments of societal issues.

Troubled Waters: A Call for
ActionA consensus reached at the opening of the International Year of the
Oceans, 1998

We, the undersigned marine scientists and conservation biologists, call
upon the world’s citizens and governments to recognize that the living
sea is in trouble and to take decisive action. We must act quickly to stop
further severe, irreversible damage to the sea’s biological diversity and
integrity.

Marine ecosystems are home to many phyla that live nowhere else. As
vital components of our planet’s life support systems, they protect shorelines
from flooding, break down wastes, moderate climate and maintain a breathable
atmosphere. Marine species provide a livelihood for millions of people,
food, medicines, raw materials and recreation for billions, and are instrinsically
important.

Life in the world’s estuaries, coastal waters, enclosed seas and oceans
is increasingly threatened by:

overexploitation of species

physical alteration of ecosystems

pollution

introduction of alien species

global atmospheric change.

Scientists have documented the extinction of marine species, disappearance
of ecosystems and loss of resources worth billions of dollars. Overfishing
has eliminated all but a handful of California’s white abalones. Swordfish
fisheries have collapsed as more boats armed with better technology chase
ever fewer fish. Northern right whales have not recovered six decades after
their exploitation supposedly ceased. Cyanide and dynamite fishing are
destroying the world’s richest coral reefs. Bottom trawling is scouring
continental shelf seabeds from the poles to the tropics. Mangrove forests
are vanishing. Logging and farming on hillsides are exposing soils to rains
that wash silt into the sea, killing kelps and reef corals. Nutrients from
sewage and toxic chemicals from industry are overnourishing and poisoning
estuaries, coastal waters and enclosed seas. Millions of seabirds have
been oiled, drowned by longlines, and deprived of nesting beaches by development
and nest-robbing cats and rats. Alien species introduced intentionally
or as stowaways in ships’ ballast tanks have become dominant species in
marine ecosystems around the world. Reef corals are succumbing to diseases
or undergoing mass bleaching in many places. There is no doubt that the
sea’s biological diversity and integrity are in trouble.

To reverse this trend and avert even more widespread harm to marine
species and ecosystems, we urge citizens and governments worldwide to take
the following five steps:

Identify and provide effective protection to all populations of marine
species that are significantly depleted or declining, take all measures
necessary to allow their recovery, minimize bycatch, end all subsidies
that encourage overfishing and ensure that use of marine species is sustainable
in perpetuity.

Increase the number and effectiveness of marine protected areas so that
20% of Exclusive Economic Zones and the Highs Seas are protected from threats
by the Year 2020.

Ameliorate or stop fishing methods that undermine sustainability by harming
the habitats of economically valuable marine species and the species they
use for food and shelter.

Stop physical alternation of terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems
that harms the sea, minimize pollution discharged at sea or entering the
sea from the land, curtail introduction of alien marine species and prevent
further atmospheric changes that threaten marine species ecosystems.

Provide sufficient resources to encourage natural and social scientists
to undertake marine conservation biology research needed to protect, restore
and sustainably use life in the sea.

Nothing happening on Earth threatens our security more than the destruction
of our living systems. The situation is so serious that leaders and citizens
cannot afford to wait even a decade to make major progress toward these
goals. To maintain, restore and sustainably use the sea’s biological diversity
and the essential products and services that it provides, we must act now.

end of statement

A copy of the statement can also be found at MCBI’s website: www.mcbi.org.

SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS STATEMENT ONMARINE RESERVESAND MARINE PROTECTED AREASAnnual Meeting of the American Association For the Advancement of the
Sciences (AAAS)
17 Feb 2001

THE CONTEXT

At the 1997 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement
of Science (AAAS), a symposium on marine protected areas reviewed the state
of the oceans, raised a number of unresolved critical scientific issues
and identified research priorities. In response, an international
team of scientists was convened at the National Center for Ecological Analysis
and Synthesis (NCEAS) and charged with developing better scientific understanding
of marine protected areas and marine reserves. Conclusions from the
two-and-a-half-year efforts of this working group are in press in a special
issue of the journal Ecological Applications. This Scientific Consensus
Statement is based upon those results and other research already published
elsewhere. The Statement is a joint effort of the NCEAS scientists
and the academic scientists participating in a meeting on marine reserves
convened by COMPASS (Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea).
This Statement was drafted in response to repeated requests by many fishermen,
marine resource managers, governmental officials, conservation activists,
interested citizens and others for a succinct, non-technical but scientifically
accurate summary of the current scientific knowledge about marine reserves.
Additional information on the history of this Statement, NCEAS and COMPASS
appears after the Statement.

New Approaches Are NeededThe declining state of the oceans and the collapse of many fisheries
have created a critical need for new and more effective management of marine
biodiversity, populations of exploited species and overall health of the
oceans. Marine reserves are a highly effective but under-appreciated
and under-utilized tool that can help alleviate many of these problems.
At present, less than 1% of United States territorial waters and less than
1% of the world’s oceans are protected in reserves.

What are Marine Reserves?Marine Reserves (MRVs) are areas of the sea completely protected from
all extractive activities. Within a reserve, all biological resources
are protected through prohibitions on fishing and the removal or disturbance
of any living or non-living marine resource, except as necessary for monitoring
or research to evaluate reserve effectiveness. Marine reserves are
sometimes called “ecological reserves,” “fully-protected marine reserves,”
or “no-take areas.” MRVs are a special category of Marine Protected
Areas (MPAs). MPAs are areas designated to enhance conservation of
marine resources. The actual level of protection within MPAs varies
considerably; most allow some extractive activities such as fishing, while
prohibiting others such as drilling for oil or gas. A Network of
Marine Reserves is a set of MRVs within a biogeographic region, connected
by larval dispersal and juvenile or adult migration.

THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

The first formal marine reserves were established more than two decades
ago. Recent analyses of the changes occurring within these MRVs allow us
to make the following conclusions:

Ecological effects within reserve boundaries:

Reserves result in long-lasting and often rapid increases in the abundance,
diversity and productivity of marine organisms.

These changes are due to decreased mortality, decreased habitat destruction
and to indirect ecosystem effects.

Reserves reduce the probability of extinction for marine species resident
within them.

Increased reserve size results in increased benefits, but even small reserves
have positive effects.

Full protection (which usually requires adequate enforcement and public
involvement) is critical to achieve this full range of benefits.
Marine protected areas do not provide the same benefits as marine reserves.

Ecological effects outside reserve boundaries: In the few
studies that have examined spillover effects, the size and abundance of
exploited species increase in areas adjacent to reserves.

Ecological effects of reserve networks:There is increasing evidence that a network of reserves buffers against
the vagaries of environmental variability and provides significantly greater
protection for marine communities than a single reserve. An effective network
needs to

span large geographic distances and

encompass a substantial area to protect against catastrophes and

provide a stable platform for the long-term persistence of marine communities.

ANALYSES OF THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE LEADS US TO CONCLUDE THAT:

Reserves conserve both fisheries and biodiversity.

To meet goals for fisheries and biodiversity conservation, reserves must
encompass the diversity of marine habitats.

Reserves are the best way to protect resident species and provide heritage
protection to important habitats.

Reserves must be established and operated in the context of other management
tools.

Reserves need a dedicated program to monitor and evaluate their impacts
both within and outside their boundaries.

Reserves provide a critical benchmark for the evaluation of threats to
ocean communities.

Networks of reserves will be necessary for long-term fishery and conservation
benefits.

SIGNATORIESThis Scientific Consensus Statement is signed by 161 leading marine
scientists and experts on marine reserves. Signatories all hold Ph.D.
degrees and are employed by academic institutions. Names and affiliations
of signatories appear on pages 5 - 12 (Removed from this document)

HISTORY AND PURPOSE OF THIS STATEMENTThis Statement was drafted in response to repeated requests by many
fishermen, marine resource managers, governmental officials, conservation
activists, interested citizens and others for a succinct, non-technical
but scientifically accurate summary of the current scientific knowledge
about marine reserves.

The Statement is based on work conducted primarily by the NCEAS Working
Group on Marine Reserves, co-chaired by Jane Lubchenco, Stephen R. Palumbi
and Steven D. Gaines. The National Center for Ecological Analysis
and Synthesis (NCEAS - <http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/>) is a scientific
institution funded by the National Science Foundation, the State of California
and the University of California, Santa Barbara. The mission of NCEAS is
to advance the state of ecological knowledge through the search for general
patterns and principles and to organize and synthesize ecological information
in a manner useful to researchers, resource managers, and policy makers
addressing important environmental issues. The Working Group on Marine
Reserves (WGMR) was convened in May 1998 following a Symposium on The Science
of Marine Protected Areas at the Annual Meeting of the American Association
for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in February 1997. Products
from the Working Group have been published or are in press in peer-reviewed
scientific journals.

The initial version of this Scientific Consensus Statement was drafted
in August 2000 at a meeting on “The Science and Development of Marine Protected
Areas and Fully Protected Marine Reserves along the U.S. West Coast” held
in Monterey, California. The meeting was organized and sponsored
by COMPASS (<http://www.CompassOnline.org/>),
the Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea, a collaboration
among Island Press, SeaWeb, Monterey Bay Aquarium and an independent Board
of Scientific Experts. The mission of COMPASS is to advance and communicate
marine conservation science. Dr. Megan Dethier and Dr. Stephen R.
Palumbi coordinated the academic scientist group which drafted the initial
Statement at the Monterey COMPASS meeting, following presentations by NCEAS
Working Group scientists.

The intended audience for the Statement includes resource users, policymakers,
non-governmental organizations, and interested citizens. Signatories
are academic Ph.D. scientists with expertise relevant to reserves.
----------------
For further information about NCEAS, COMPASS, the Statement, a list
of scientific products from the NCEAS Working Group on Marine Reserves
or to add your name for future use of the Statement, please contact Dr.
Patty Debenham pdebenham@nceas.ucsb.edu
or Dr. George Leonard gleonard@mbayaq.org.
-----------------
17 Feb 2001; Annual Meeting of the American Association For the Advancement
of the Sciences

As marine scientists and conservation biologists, we are profoundly
concerned that human activities, particularly bottom trawling, are causing
unprecedented damage to the deep-sea coral and sponge communities on continental
plateaus and slopes, and on seamounts and mid-ocean ridges.

Shallow-water coral reefs are sometimes called "the rainforests of the
sea" for their extraordinary biological diversity, perhaps the highest
anywhere on Earth. However, until quite recently, few people-even marine
scientists-knew that the majority of coral species live in colder, darker
depths, or that some of these form coral reefs and forests similar to those
of shallow waters in appearance, species richness and importance to fisheries.
Lophelia coral reefs in cold waters of the Northeast Atlantic have over
1,300 species of invertebrates, and over 850 species of macro- and megafauna
were recently found on seamounts in the Tasman and Coral Seas, as many
as in a shallow-water coral reef. Because seamounts are essentially undersea
islands, many seamount species are endemics-species that occur nowhere
else-and are therefore exceptionally vulnerable to extinction. Moreover,
marine scientists have observed large numbers of commercially important
but increasingly uncommon groupers and redfish among the sheltering structures
of deep-sea coral reefs. Finally, because of their longevity, some deep-sea
corals can serve as archives of past climate conditions that are important
to understanding global climate change. In short, based on current knowledge,
deep-sea coral and sponge communities appear to be as important to the
biodiversity of the oceans and the sustainability of fisheries as their
analogues in shallow tropical seas.

In recent years scientists have discovered deep-sea corals and/or coral
reefs in Japan, Tasmania, New Zealand, Alaska, California, Nova Scotia,
Maine, North Carolina, Florida, Colombia, Brazil, Norway, Sweden, UK, Ireland
and Mauritania. Because research submarines and remotely operated vehicles
suitable for studying the deep sea are few and expensive to operate, scientific
investigation of these remarkable communities is in its very early stages.
But it is increasingly clear that deep-sea corals usually inhabit places
where natural disturbance is rare, and where growth and reproduction appear
to be exceedingly slow. Deep-sea corals and sponges may live for centuries,
making them and the myriad species that depend on them extremely slow to
recover from disturbance.
Unfortunately, just as scientists have begun to understand the diversity,
importance and vulnerability of deep-sea coral forests and reefs, humans
have developed technologies that profoundly disturb them. There is reason
for concern about deep-sea oil and gas development, deep-sea mining and
global warming, but, at present, the greatest human threat to coral and
sponge communities is commercial fishing, especially bottom trawling. Trawlers
are vessels that drag large, heavily weighted nets across the seafloor
to catch fishes and shrimps. Scientific studies around the world have shown
that trawling is devastating to corals and sponges. As trawlers become
more technologically sophisticated, and as fishes disappear from shallower
areas, trawling is increasingly occurring at depths exceeding 1,000 meters.

It is not too late to save most of the world's deep-sea coral and sponge
ecosystems. We commend nations including Australia, New Zealand, Canada
and Norway, which have already taken initial steps towards protecting some
coral and sponge ecosystems under their jurisdiction. We urge the United
Nations and appropriate international bodies to establish a moratorium
on bottom trawling on the High Seas. Similarly, we urge individual nations
and states to ban bottom trawling to protect deep-sea ecosystems wherever
coral forests and reefs are known to occur within their Exclusive Economic
Zones. We urge them to prohibit roller and rockhopper trawls and any similar
technologies that allow fishermen to trawl on the rough bottoms where deep-sea
coral and sponge communities are most likely to occur. We urge them to
support research and mapping of vulnerable deep-sea coral and sponge communities.
And we urge them to establish effective, representative networks of marine
protected areas that include deep-sea coral and sponge communities.

Oaxaca Declaration on Biodiversity

The scientists participating in the DIVERSITAS First Open Science Conference,
integrating biodiversity science for human well-being, held in Oaxaca,
November 9-12, 2005, support the conclusions of the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment and of the Conference Biodiversity Science and Governance held
in Paris in January 2005:

Biodiversity is our common natural heritage and the foundation for a wide
variety of ecosystem services that are crucial to human well-being.

Irreversible destruction of biodiversity is taking place globally as a
result of human activities; there is insufficient political and public
attention to its extent and consequences.

Mechanisms to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity have been developed
at local, national and international levels; these need to be supported
and considerably expanded.

Scientific knowledge of biodiversity must be substantially increased, but
immediate actions must be taken to better protect biodiversity based on
existing knowledge.

Therefore, they call upon governments, policy makers and citizens:

to integrate biodiversity into the criteria considered in all economic
and policy decisions that affect environmental management;

to launch and support ambitious interdisciplinary research programmes to
explore the Earth’s biodiversity, the ecological and socio-economic causes
and consequences of its changes, and the best means to conserve and sustainably
use it;

to commit resources to build and greatly expand the capacity, especially
in developing countries, to undertake biodiversity research and implement
the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.

In agreement with the recommendations of the Paris Conference, they urge
national governments and United Nations bodies to establish a properly
resourced international scientific panel that includes an intergovernmental
component and that aims at providing, on a regular basis, validated and
independent scientific information relating to biodiversity to governments,
international conventions, non-governmental organisations, policy makers
and the wider public.

Attentive readers will note that this declaration does
not address issues, causes nor effects. It is a call for more scientific
funding for ambitious research programmes, expanded research capacity and
a well resourced international panel. This large panel aims to provide
independent information to all and sundry. The Oaxaca declaration supports
the conclusions of the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (2005), which many think is a waste of effort
as it sidesteps the most important issue of population control and does
not provide testable criteria for progress. It also believes too much in
market driven solutions, none of which have been properly investigated
and proved. Neither are alternatives mentioned. www.maweb.org.

Climate change is realThere will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex
as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant
global warming is occurring1. The evidence comes from direct measurements
of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and
from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating
glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely
that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities
(IPCC 2001)2. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate.

The existence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is vital to life
on Earth – in their absence average temperatures would be about 30 centigrade
degrees lower than they are today. But human activities are now causing
atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases – including carbon dioxide,
methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide – to rise well above pre-industrial
levels.

Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375
ppm today – higher than any previous levels that can be reliably measured
(i.e. in the last 420,000 years). Increasing greenhouse gases are causing
temperatures to rise; the Earth’s surface warmed by approximately 0.6 centigrade
degrees over the twentieth century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) projected that the average global surface temperatures will
continue to increase to between 1.4 centigrade degrees and 5.8 centigrade
degrees above 1990 levels, by 2100.

Reduce the causes of climate changeThe scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently
clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations
identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to
substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.

Action taken now to reduce significantly the build-up of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere will lessen the magnitude and rate of climate change.
As the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) recognises,
a lack of full scientific certainty about some aspects of climate change
is not a reason for delaying an immediate response that will, at a reasonable
cost, prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

As nations and economies develop over the next 25 years, world primary
energy demand is estimated to increase by almost 60%. Fossil fuels, which
are responsible for the majority of carbon dioxide emissions produced by
human activities, provide valuable resources for many nations and are projected
to provide 85% of this demand (IEA 2004)3.

Minimising the amount of this carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere
presents a huge challenge. There are many potentially cost-effective technological
options that could contribute to stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations.
These are at various stages of research and development. However barriers
to their broad deployment still need to be overcome.

Carbon dioxide can remain in the atmosphere for many decades. Even with
possible lowered emission rates we will be experiencing the impacts of
climate change throughout the 21st century and beyond. Failure to implement
significant reductions in net greenhouse gas emissions now, will make the
job much harder in the future.

Prepare for the consequences of climate changeMajor parts of the climate system respond slowly to changes in greenhouse
gas concentrations. Even if greenhouse gas emissions were stabilised instantly
at today’s levels, the climate would still continue to change as it adapts
to the increased emission of recent decades. Further changes in climate
are therefore unavoidable. Nations must prepare for them.

The projected changes in climate will have both beneficial and adverse
effects at the regional level, for example on water resources, agriculture,
natural ecosystems and human health. The larger and faster the changes
in climate, the more likely it is that adverse effects will dominate. Increasing
temperatures are likely to increase the frequency and severity of weather
events such as heat waves and heavy rainfall. Increasing temperatures could
lead to large-scale effects such as melting of large ice sheets (with major
impacts on low-lying regions throughout the world). The IPCC estimates
that the combined effects of ice melting and sea water expansion from ocean
warming are projected to cause the global mean sea-level to rise by between
0.1 and 0.9 metres between 1990 and 2100. In Bangladesh alone, a 0.5 metre
sea-level rise would place about 6 million people at risk from flooding.

Developing nations that lack the infrastructure or resources to respond
to the impacts of climate change will be particularly affected. It is clear
that many of the world’s poorest people are likely to suffer the most from
climate change. Long-term global efforts to create a more healthy, prosperous
and sustainable world may be severely hindered by changes in the climate.
The task of devising and implementing strategies to adapt to the consequences
of climate change will require worldwide collaborative inputs from a wide
range of experts, including physical and natural scientists, engineers,
social scientists, medical scientists, those in the humanities, business
leaders and economists.

ConclusionWe urge all nations, in the line with the UNFCCC principles4, to take
prompt action to reduce the causes of climate change, adapt to its impacts
and ensure that the issue is included in all relevant national and international
strategies. As national science academies, we commit to working with governments
to help develop and implement the national and international response to
the challenge of climate change.
G8 nations have been responsible for much of the past greenhouse gas
emissions. As parties to the UNFCCC, G8 nations are committed to showing
leadership in addressing climate change and assisting developing nations
to meet the challenges of adaptation and mitigation.

We call on world leaders, including those meeting at the Gleneagles
G8 Summit in July 2005, to:

Acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing.

Launch an international study5 to explore scientificallyinformed targets
for atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and their associated emissions
scenarios, that will enable nations to avoid impacts deemed unacceptable.

Identify cost-effective steps that can be taken now to contribute to substantial
and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions. Recognise
that delayed action will increase the risk of adverse environmental effects
and will likely incur a greater cost.

Work with developing nations to build a scientific and technological capacity
best suited to their circumstances, enabling them to develop innovative
solutions to mitigate and adapt to the adverse effects of climate change,
while explicitly recognising their legitimate development rights.

Show leadership in developing and deploying clean energy technologies and
approaches to energy efficiency, and share this knowledge with all other
nations.

Mobilise the science and technology community to enhance research and development
efforts, which can better inform climate change decisions.

We scientists who met in Monaco to review what is known about ocean
acidification declare that we are deeply concerned by recent, rapid changes
in ocean chemistry and their potential, within decades, to severely affect
marine organisms, food webs, biodiversity, and fisheries. To avoid severe
and widespread damages, all of which are ultimately driven by increasing
concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), we call for policymakers
to act quickly to incorporate these concerns into plans to stabilize atmospheric
CO2 at a safe level to avoid not only dangerous climate change but also
dangerous ocean acidification.

Sub-sections:

Ocean acidification is underway

Ocean acidification is already detectable

Ocean acidification is accelerating and severe damages are imminent

Ocean acidification will have socioeconomic impacts

Ocean acidification is rapid, but recovery will be slow

Ocean acidification can be controlled only by limiting future atmospheric
CO2 levels

to help improve understanding of impacts of ocean acidification by promoting
research in this field, which is still in its infancy;

to help build links between economists and scientists that are needed to
evaluate the socioeconomic extent of impacts and costs for action versus
inaction;

to help improve communication between policymakers and scientists so that
i) new policies are based on current findings and ii) scientific studies
can be widened to include the most policy-relevant questions;

Reader,, please note the amount of uncertainty here:
"improve understanding which is still in its infancy; links between players;
improve communication; cutting emissions". Now read our dissection and
rebuttal on this web site: Ocean Acidification
(fraud or fright?)

An example to illustrate the intense effort needed: To stay
below an atmospheric CO2 level of about 550 ppm, the current increase in
total CO2 emissions of 3% per year must be reversed by 2020. Even steeper
reductions will be needed to keep most polar waters from becoming corrosive
to the shells of key marine species and to maintain favourable conditions
for coral growth. If negotiations at COP-15 in Copenhagen in December 2009
fall short of these objectives, still higher atmospheric CO2 levels will
be inevitable.

Oceans play a critical role in the global carbon cycle by absorbing about
a quarter of the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere from human activities; [?]

The rapid increase in CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution has
increased the acidity of the world’s oceans with potentially
profound consequences for marine plants and animals especially those that
require calcium carbonate to grow and survive, and other species that rely
on these for food;

At current emission rates modelssuggest
that all coral reefs and polar ecosystems will be severely affected by
2050 or potentially even earlier;

Marine food supplies are likely to be reduced
with significant implications for food production and security in regions
dependent on fish protein, and human health and wellbeing;

Ocean acidification is irreversible on timescales of at least tens of thousands
of years; [?]

Even with stabilisation of atmospheric CO2 at 450 ppm, ocean acidification
will have profound impacts on many marine systems. Large and rapid reductions
of global CO2 emissions are needed globally by at least 50% by 2050. [?]

1. CO2 and ocean chemistryOver the past 200 years, the oceans have absorbed approximately a quarter
of the CO2 produced from human activities.[?]
This CO2 would otherwise have accumulated in the atmosphere leading to
greater climate change. [?] However, the absorption
of this CO2 has affected ocean chemistry and has caused the oceans (which
are on average slightly alkaline) to become more acidic. The average pH
of oceanic surface waters has been lowered by 0.1 units since the pre-industrial
period. [?] This represents a 30% increase
in hydrogen ion activity. Hydrogen ions attack carbonate ions which are
the building blocks needed by many marine organisms, such as corals and
shellfish, to produce their skeletons, shells and other hard structures.
This loss of carbonate ions [increase, actually]
produce lower saturation levels for the carbonate minerals, aragonite and
calcite, which are used in many shells and skeletons. Carbonate ion concentrations
are now lower than at any other time during the last 800 000 years. [?]Global atmospheric CO2 concentrations are now at 387 ppm. If current
trends in CO2 emissions continue, model projections
suggest that by mid-century CO2 concentrations will be more than
double pre-industrial levels and the oceans will be more acidic than they
have been for tens of millions of years. The current rate of change is
much more rapid than during any event over the last 65 million years. These
changes
in ocean chemistry are irreversible for many thousands of years, and the
biological consequences could last much longer. [?]

2. Environmental damage from ocean acidificationOcean acidification impacts on marine life will
depend on the rate and magnitude of changes in ocean chemistry and
biological responses. While the ocean chemistry changes are
predictable with high certainty, our understanding
of the impacts is still developing. Nevertheless, there is strong
evidence emerging for a range of biological effects and changes in the
marine biogeochemical processes that affect the carbon cycle. The long-term
consequences of this are difficult to predict.
Impacts are already being observed in the polar and tropical regions.
Coral calcification rates have declined in recent decades, although attributing
causes for these impacts among multiple drivers (acidification, warming,
pollution, etc.) is a challenge. Fundamental
ecological ocean processes will be affected as many marine organisms depend
directly or indirectly on calcium carbonate saturated waters and are adapted
to current levels of seawater pH for physiological and metabolic processes
such as calcification, growth and reproduction. [?]
The pH changes expected will exceed the seasonal and regional variations
currently experienced naturally. [?]

4.? [headline missing in declaration]
Ocean acidification is a global issue. However, changes in ocean chemistry
will be regionally variable with some regions affected more rapidly than
others. The high CO2 waters in polar and upwelling regions such as the
eastern Pacific and Bering Sea for example, will experience low pH more
rapidly than other regions.[cold water absorbs CO2]
Tropical waters, such as those around the Great Barrier Reef will also
experience rapid declines in the carbonate ions important for coral reef
construction. [?]According
to recent model projections almost all tropical and sub-tropical
coral reefs were surrounded by waters favourable to coral growth before
the industrial revolution. [?] If atmospheric
CO2 is stabilized at 450 ppm, only a very small fraction (~8%) of existing
tropical and subtropical coral reefs will be surrounded by such water,
and at 550 ppm, coral reefs may be dissolving
globally. [?] Cold water corals are also vulnerable
and are likely to be affected before they
have even been fully explored. [?] By 2100,
it
has been estimated that 70% will be in waters unfavourable for growth.
In the polar regions, model projections
using current CO2 emission rates suggest that
parts of the Southern Ocean will be undersaturated for aragonite by 2050.
Aragonite undersaturation is projected for
10% of Arctic waters by around 2020, and by 2060, 80% of waters will be
undersaturated for aragonite and calcite. This means the waters will be
corrosive to Arctic calcifiers such as pteropods, and bivalves such as
clams, which play a key role in Arctic food webs. [?]The ocean chemistry changes projected will exceed the range of natural
variability, which is likely to be too rapid
for many species to adapt to. [?] Many coastal
animals and groups of phytoplankton and zooplankton may
be directly affected with implications for fish, marine mammals
and the other groups that depend on them for food. Increased CO2 may
be particularly stressful for organisms with high metabolic rates
such as squid. [?] The impacts of these changes
on oceanic ecosystems and the services they provide, for example in fisheries,
coastal protection, tourism, carbon sequestration and climate regulation,
cannot
yet be estimated accurately but they are potentially large.
Although some species may benefit, most
are adapted to current conditions and the impacts on ocean biological diversity
and ecosystem functioning will likely be severe.
Analysis of past events in Earth’s geologic history suggests
that chemical recovery will take tens of thousands of years – while the
recovery of ecosystem function and biological diversity can
take much longer.

4. MitigationOcean acidification is irreversible during our lifetimes and those
of many generations to come. [?] To minimise
the risk of these large-scale and long-term changes to the oceans the increase
in atmospheric CO2 must be curbed by reducing emissions from human activities.
[?]Recent scenario studies have estimated
that stabilisation of atmospheric CO2 concentrations at 550 ppm will produce
enough acidification to be disastrous for sensitive oceanic ecosystems
in many parts of the world. [?] Even at 450
ppm, more than 10% of the world’s oceans will be impacted including large
parts of the Southern, North Pacific, and Arctic oceans. [?]Mitigation approaches such as adding chemicals to counter the effects
of acidification are likely to be expensive,
only partly effective and only at a very local scale, and may
pose additional unanticipated risks to the marine environment. There
has been very little research on the feasibility and impacts of
these approaches. Substantial research is needed before these techniques
could be applied.

5. Conclusions and recommendationsOcean acidification is a direct consequence of increasing atmospheric
CO2 concentrations. [?] To avoid substantial
damage to ocean ecosystems, deep and rapid reductions of global CO2 emissions
by at least 50% by 2050, and much more thereafter are needed.

We, the academies of science working through the InterAcademy Panel
on International Issues (IAP), call on world leaders to:

Acknowledge that ocean acidification is a direct and real consequence of
increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, is already having an effect
at current concentrations, and is likely to
cause grave harm to important marine ecosystems as CO2 concentrations reach
450 ppm and above; [?]

Recognise that reducing the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere is the only
practicable solution to mitigating ocean acidification; [?]

Within the context of the UNFCCC negotiations in the run up to Copenhagen
2009, recognise the direct threats posed by increasing atmospheric CO2
emissions to the oceans and therefore society, and take action to mitigate
this threat;

Implement action to reduce global CO2 emissions by at least 50% of 1990
levels by 2050 and continue to reduce them thereafter; [?]

Reinvigorate action to reduce stressors, such as overfishing and pollution,
on marine ecosystems to increase resilience to ocean acidification. [?]

The following academies have endorsed
this statement.

• TWAS, the academy of sciences for the developing world• Albanian Academy of Sciences• National Academy of Exact, Physical and NaturalSciences, Argentina• Australian Academy of Science• Bangladesh Academy of Sciences• The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium• Brazilian Academy of Sciences• Bulgarian Academy of Sciences• Cameroon Academy of Sciences• RSC: The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences
of Canada• Academia Chilena de Ciencias• Chinese Academy of Sciences• Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences• Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences• Cuban Academy of Sciences• Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic• Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters• Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana• Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt• The Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science
and Letters• Académie des Sciences, France• Georgian Academy of Sciences• Union der Deutschen Akademien der Wissenschaften• Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina• The Academy of Athens• Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de
Guatemala• Indian National Science Academy• Indonesian Academy of Sciences• Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran• Royal Irish Academy• Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities• Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei• Science Council of Japan• Royal Scientific Society of Jordan• Islamic World Academy of Sciences

• African Academy of Sciences• Kenya National Academy of Sciences• The Korean Academy of Science and Technology• Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts• National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic• Akademi Sains Malaysia• Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology• Academia Mexicana de Ciencias• Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts• The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences• Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand• Nigerian Academy of Sciences• Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters• Pakistan Academy of Sciences• Palestine Academy for Science and Technology• Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru• Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa• Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal• Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts• Slovak Academy of Sciences• Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts• Academy of Science of South Africa• Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
of Spain• National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka• Sudanese National Academy of Science• Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences• Academia Sinica, Taiwan, China• Tanzania Academy of Sciences• The Caribbean Academy of Sciences• Turkish Academy of Sciences• The Uganda National Academy of Sciences• The Royal Society, UK• US National Academy of Sciences• Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas
y Naturales de Venezuela• Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

"Men go mad in herds, but only come to their
senses one by one." — Charles Mackay, 19th century Scottish journalist

"I know that most men, including those at ease
with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest
and most obvious truth, if it be such as would oblige them to admit the
falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues,
which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven thread
by thread, into the fabric of their lives". - Leo Tolstoy, Count Lev
Nikolayevich Tolstoy (1828-1910)

Reader, as you can see, this scare statement is
almost entirely based on ignorance and assumptions. Read our chapter on
ocean
acidification to understand how it works and that fear is highly unjustified,
and that properly conducted experiments show the opposite of what is claimed
by global warming alarmists. Also read why science
needs skeptics. Note how the greatest scientific fraud of our times
has come tumbling down as Climategate (search Google).